ArticlePloS one2020
Trends in cardiorespiratory fitness among apparently healthy adults from the Ball State Adult Fitness Longitudinal Lifestyle STudy (BALL ST) cohort from 1970-2019.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Age-related decline in peak oxygen uptake: Cross-sectional vs. longitudinal findings. A review.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2023Review
- Change in Metabolic Syndrome and Cardiorespiratory Fitness Following Exercise Training - The Ball State Adult Fitness Longitudinal Lifestyle Study (BALL ST).Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2022Article
- Energy cost of walking in obese survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A report from the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
- Reference Standards for Cardiorespiratory Fitness by Cardiovascular Disease Category and Testing Modality: Data From FRIEND.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is a strong independent predictor of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and CVD mortality. However, little is known in regards to how CRF has trended in apparently healthy adults over the past several decades. PURPOSE: To analyze trends in CRF and CVD risk factors over the last 50 years in a population of apparently healthy adult men and women.
methodsParticipants were 4,214 apparently healthy adults (2,390 men and 1,824 women) from the Ball State Adult Fitness Longitudinal Lifestyle STudy (BALL ST) that performed maximal cardiopulmonary exercise testing between 1970-2019 for the assessment of CRF defined as VO2max (ml/kg/min). Participants were self-referred either to a community-based exercise program, fitness testing, or were research subjects in exercise related studies and were placed into groups by decade based on testing date.
resultsCRF showed a general trend to decline (P<0.05) from the 1970s to the 2000s with an increase (P<0.05) from the 2000s to the 2010s for both men and women. This pattern persisted for age and sex-adjusted CRF level, determined by Fitness Registry and the Importance of Exercise: A National Data Base (FRIEND). For both women and men, CRF across the decades was associated (P<0.05) with the prevalence of physical inactivity, smoking, obesity, dyslipidemia and hypertension, and with diabetes in men only.
conclusionCRF declined from 1970 through the 2000s in a cohort of apparently healthy men and women which was associated with worsening CVD risk profiles. However, the decline in CRF was attenuated over the past decade which may have a positive impact on future CVD in the population. Promoting physical activity to increase CRF should be a primary aspect of CVD prevention programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.